IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v118y2017icp226-235.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technology users and standardization: Game changing strategies in the field of smart meter technology

Author

Listed:
  • Markard, Jochen
  • Erlinghagen, Sabine

Abstract

Struggles over technology standards are typically reported for competing technology providers. Technology users often play not much of a role in standard development. This paper presents findings from the emerging innovation system of smart meter communication, in which large technology users act as standard developers. This phenomenon is relatively rare, as users often lack the resources and competences to actively engage in standard development. Over a period of 14years (2000–2013), we track how different standards emerged and changed, why and how users became standard sponsors, and what impact this had on the field. Our analysis is based on variety of data sources, including participatory observation and expert interviews. After an initial period, in which only proprietary standards were available, two large users started to develop open standards together with alliance partners and standard development organizations. Consequently, sponsors of proprietary standards change their strategies, also toward open, alliance-based standards. A central condition for this shift in standardization was that the two users controlled large shares of the market. Our research points to the conditions for user involvement in standardization, thereby contrasting three different settings for standard development. We interpret the case as an example for the larger issue of institutional structures in technological innovation systems developing over time in a patchwork-like way, thereby shaping and changing the conditions for strategic action.

Suggested Citation

  • Markard, Jochen & Erlinghagen, Sabine, 2017. "Technology users and standardization: Game changing strategies in the field of smart meter technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 226-235.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:118:y:2017:i:c:p:226-235
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.02.023
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162517302184
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.02.023?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Depuru, Soma Shekara Sreenadh Reddy & Wang, Lingfeng & Devabhaktuni, Vijay, 2011. "Electricity theft: Overview, issues, prevention and a smart meter based approach to control theft," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 1007-1015, February.
    2. Lyytinen, Kalle & Fomin, Vladislav V., 0. "Achieving high momentum in the evolution of wireless infrastructures: the battle over the 1G solutions," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3-4), pages 149-170, April.
    3. West, Joel, 2003. "How open is open enough?: Melding proprietary and open source platform strategies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 1259-1285, July.
    4. Narayanan, V.K. & Chen, Tianxu, 2012. "Research on technology standards: Accomplishment and challenges," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1375-1406.
    5. Suarez, Fernando F., 2004. "Battles for technological dominance: an integrative framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 271-286, March.
    6. Erlinghagen, Sabine & Lichtensteiger, Bill & Markard, Jochen, 2015. "Smart meter communication standards in Europe – a comparison," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 1249-1262.
    7. Jain, Sanjay, 2012. "Pragmatic agency in technology standards setting: The case of Ethernet," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(9), pages 1643-1654.
    8. Funk, Jeffrey L. & Methe, David T., 2001. "Market- and committee-based mechanisms in the creation and diffusion of global industry standards: the case of mobile communication," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 589-610, April.
    9. Musiolik, Jörg & Markard, Jochen & Hekkert, Marko, 2012. "Networks and network resources in technological innovation systems: Towards a conceptual framework for system building," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 79(6), pages 1032-1048.
    10. Foray, Dominique, 1994. "Users, standards and the economics of coalitions and committees," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 6(3-4), pages 269-293, December.
    11. Bergek, Anna & Jacobsson, Staffan & Carlsson, Bo & Lindmark, Sven & Rickne, Annika, 2008. "Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 407-429, April.
    12. Cusumano, Michael A. & Mylonadis, Yiorgos & Rosenbloom, Richard S., 1992. "Strategic Maneuvering and Mass-Market Dynamics: The Triumph of VHS over Beta," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 66(1), pages 51-94, April.
    13. Colak, Ilhami & Fulli, Gianluca & Sagiroglu, Seref & Yesilbudak, Mehmet & Covrig, Catalin-Felix, 2015. "Smart grid projects in Europe: Current status, maturity and future scenarios," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 58-70.
    14. Aija Elina Leiponen, 2008. "Competing Through Cooperation: The Organization of Standard Setting in Wireless Telecommunications," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(11), pages 1904-1919, November.
    15. Daniel Muzio & David M. Brock & Roy Suddaby, 2013. "Professions and Institutional Change: Towards an Institutionalist Sociology of the Professions," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(5), pages 699-721, July.
    16. Markard, Jochen & Wirth, Steffen & Truffer, Bernhard, 2016. "Institutional dynamics and technology legitimacy – A framework and a case study on biogas technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 330-344.
    17. Musiolik, Jörg & Markard, Jochen, 2011. "Creating and shaping innovation systems: Formal networks in the innovation system for stationary fuel cells in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 1909-1922, April.
    18. Markard, Jochen & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2016. "Analysis of complementarities: Framework and examples from the energy transition," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 63-75.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jacqueline Nicole Adams & Zsófia Deme Bélafi & Miklós Horváth & János Balázs Kocsis & Tamás Csoknyai, 2021. "How Smart Meter Data Analysis Can Support Understanding the Impact of Occupant Behavior on Building Energy Performance: A Comprehensive Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-23, April.
    2. Xi, Xun & Xi, Baoxing & Miao, Chenglin & Yu, Rongjian & Xie, Jie & Xiang, Rong & Hu, Feng, 2022. "Factors influencing technological innovation efficiency in the Chinese video game industry: Applying the meta-frontier approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    3. Lee, Won Sang & Sohn, So Young, 2018. "Effects of standardization on the evolution of information and communications technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 308-317.
    4. Maksymilian Kochański & Katarzyna Korczak & Tadeusz Skoczkowski, 2021. "Enablers and Barriers in the Market-Driven Rollout of Smart Metering: Polish Technology Innovation System Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-28, August.
    5. Musiolik, Jörg & Markard, Jochen & Hekkert, Marko & Furrer, Bettina, 2020. "Creating innovation systems: How resource constellations affect the strategies of system builders," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Markard, Jochen & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2016. "Analysis of complementarities: Framework and examples from the energy transition," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 63-75.
    2. Erlinghagen, Sabine & Lichtensteiger, Bill & Markard, Jochen, 2015. "Smart meter communication standards in Europe – a comparison," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 1249-1262.
    3. Wiegmann, Paul Moritz & de Vries, Henk J. & Blind, Knut, 2017. "Multi-mode standardisation: A critical review and a research agenda," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1370-1386.
    4. Markard, Jochen, 2020. "The life cycle of technological innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    5. Musiolik, Jörg & Markard, Jochen & Hekkert, Marko & Furrer, Bettina, 2020. "Creating innovation systems: How resource constellations affect the strategies of system builders," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    6. Rohe, Sebastian & Chlebna, Camilla, 2021. "A spatial perspective on the legitimacy of a technological innovation system: Regional differences in onshore wind energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    7. Blind, Knut & Mangelsdorf, Axel, 2016. "Motives to standardize: Empirical evidence from Germany," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 48, pages 13-24.
    8. Dinçkol, Dize & Ozcan, Pinar & Zachariadis, Markos, 2023. "Regulatory standards and consequences for industry architecture: The case of UK Open Banking," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    9. van de Kaa, Geerten & de Vries, Henk J., 2015. "Factors for winning format battles: A comparative case study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 222-235.
    10. Hussinger, Katrin & Schwiebacher, Franz, 2013. "The value of disclosing IPR to open standard setting organizations," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-060, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    11. Steffen S. Bettin, 2020. "Electricity infrastructure and innovation in the next phase of energy transition—amendments to the technology innovation system framework," Review of Evolutionary Political Economy, Springer, vol. 1(3), pages 371-395, November.
    12. Sinsel, Simon R. & Markard, Jochen & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2020. "How deployment policies affect innovation in complementary technologies—evidence from the German energy transition," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    13. Susan K. Cohen & Sean T. Hsu & Kristina B. Dahlin, 2016. "With Whom Do Technology Sponsors Partner During Technology Battles? Social Networking Strategies for Unproven (and Proven) Technologies," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 846-872, August.
    14. Narayanan, V.K. & Chen, Tianxu, 2012. "Research on technology standards: Accomplishment and challenges," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1375-1406.
    15. den Hartigh, Erik & Ortt, J. Roland & van de Kaa, Geerten & Stolwijk, Claire C.M., 2016. "Platform control during battles for market dominance: The case of Apple versus IBM in the early personal computer industry," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 48, pages 4-12.
    16. Allan Dahl Andersen & Jochen Markard, 2017. "Innovating incumbents and technological complementarities: How recent dynamics in the HVDC industry can inform transition theories," Working Papers on Innovation Studies 20170612, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.
    17. Andersen, Allan Dahl & Markard, Jochen, 2020. "Multi-technology interaction in socio-technical transitions: How recent dynamics in HVDC technology can inform transition theories," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    18. Attila Havas & Doris Schartinger & K. Matthias Weber, 2022. "Innovation Studies, Social Innovation, and Sustainability Transitions Research: From mutual ignorance towards an integrative perspective?," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 2227, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    19. Yap, Xiao-Shan & Truffer, Bernhard, 2019. "Shaping selection environments for industrial catch-up and sustainability transitions: A systemic perspective on endogenizing windows of opportunity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 1030-1047.
    20. Kim, Dong-hyu & Lee, Heejin & Kwak, Jooyoung, 2017. "Standards as a driving force that influences emerging technological trajectories in the converging world of the Internet and things: An investigation of the M2M/IoT patent network," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1234-1254.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:118:y:2017:i:c:p:226-235. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.